HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 96-3500 Rejection of Claim by Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack1
1
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -3500
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY: 1) DENYING A CLAIM AND 2) REJECTING A REQUEST FOR
LATE CLAIM FTT,F,D BY ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK (ON
BEHALF OF ABALO ET AL) ON OR ABOUT APRIL 10, 1996,
RELATING TO CLAIMS RELATING TO OPERATING INDUSTRIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The City Council fmds that heretofore (on or about April 10, 1996), Engstrom,
Lipscomb & Lack filed on behalf of Claimants "Abalo et al" a claim for damages against this City (inter
alia).
SECTION 2. The City Council further fmds that each, every and all of such claims are untimely
and filed too late under Section 911 et seq of the California Government Code which allows only six
months within which to file such claims.
specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges were filed more than six months
after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994.
specifically: any and all claims based on trespass were filed more than six months after
such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994.
specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional
distress were filed more than six moths after such claim was known to claimant in
September of 1994.
specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence were filed more than six months after
such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994.
specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities were filed more than six
months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994.
specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance were filed more
than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994.
generally any and all other claims set forth in said filing relate to claims which are
outlawed by any and all claims procedures, local, state or federal.
SECTION 3. The Council further fmds that claimants' petition to file a "late Claim" (under
Government Code §945.4/946.6 is not justified under applicable statutory and case law, in that:
Claimants have not shown any reason (mistake, inadvertence, etc) as to why such claim
could not have been filed within the statutory period; claimants have pressed damage
claim against other parties to Operating Industries site as early as September 1994 (if not
prior thereto); the claim is not made without any explanation for delay as required by G.C.
911.4/911.6.
This City has been prejudiced by the additional delay because the gravamen of the
litigation involves matters more than thirty years duration; the facts and evidence to be
adduced was already faint and now becomes more so; settlements have been entered into
which were global in scope on the basis that (as represented) no such claims would be
filed; and it would be prejudicial to require this City to re -enter the fray at this late date.
SECTION 4. The Council further fmds that such claim (and any and all of its sub - parts) involves
threatened litigation barred under the applicable statutes of limitation (usually one; not more than three
years), within which such litigation must be filed, as follows:
Resolution No. 96 -3500
Page 2
each, every and all of such claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
specifically: any and all claims based on trespass are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional
distress are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.
specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities are barred by the
applicable statutes and laws relating thereto.
specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
generally: any and all other claims set forth in said filing relate to litigation outlawed by
any applicable statutes of limitations, local, state or federaL
SECTION 5. Accordingly, said Claim is rejected as: a) field too late, and b) involving litigation
which is now barred by applicable statutes. Said Petition to file a "late Claim" is denied based on: a) not
filed within a reasonable period, b) laches demonstrated by the Claimants, and c) prejudice to this City by
unnecessary delay.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall notify the Claimants (and all relevant other parties of this
action) of the actions taken herein, together with such other information as may be required in G.C.
911.3(b), 913(b), 911.4, and Hasty v. Co. L.A. 61 CA3d 623 @ 626 and Han v. Pomona 43 CR2d 616;
Munoz 33 CA4th 1767; and Mancini v. Aerojet 1996DJDAR 3856.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of May, 1996.
ATTEST:
amity 61erk
4i.125'
MAYOR
I, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution
No. 96 -3500, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the
7th day of May, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman - Breazeal, Budds, Souder, Wilson
NOES: Councilman -None
ABSENT: Councilman- Gillanders
EtyCK77/11L
k
/71,4zt,
1
1
1